We are all constantly prodded to "go green" because supposedly the planet is undergoing a warming trend. Most of mainstream science seems to support this idea. This is causing an increase in interest in alternative energy technologies. Some of which have actually been around for many years, but have been mostly ignored by the public until now. The other day I bought a collection of "In Search Of" episodes on dvd. One of those episodes is called "Coming Ice Age" This theory also had a lot of scientific support in the late 70's. By now you're probably wondering what this all has to do with Bigfoot. Well, I'll tell you. With two such opposing theories as global warming & a coming ice age, both with support from the scientific community, I'm starting to wonder if science may be vulnerable to lobbyists. And if science is vulnerable to lobbyists, what industry or industries, if any, would benefit from scientific support of the Bigfoot phenomenon? Maybe if we could figure out if any industries would benefit from the existence of Bigfoot, we could appeal to them for funding to further research. The only industry I can think of is tourism though
P.S.
West Virginia's record high temperature of 112 °F (44 °C) was recorded at Martinsburg on July 10, 1936, and at Moorefield on Aug. 4, 1930.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
Seeking feedback from mainstream science
A few days ago I received an interesting trail cam video that may or may not be a black bear. I am reluctant to post it on any Bigfoot forums at this point because I would like several opinions from bear & other experts first. After several unsuccessful attempts at e-mailing it to a couple of experts, I uploaded it to my website & then e-mailed the page link to the experts. Chris Ryan, leader of the West Virginia Black Bear Project, says it could be anything with black or dark fur & Dr. Lynn Rogers hasn't replied yet. I also posted it on a Biology forum & ageneral science discussion forum. The only replies from them so far is one person says it's probably a black bear. But the way he phrased it, I suspect he thought I was inquiring if it could be a different species of bear. All of this is leading up to the point of my post. That we sometimes get accused of only sharing potential evidence with fellow Bigfoot researchers, but often when we do attempt to share something with the mainstream scientific community, we get little or no feedback. Another incident that happened to me was a month or so ago, I got the idea that possibly touch DNA testing of the dirt a possible Bigfoot track was left in, might yield some DNA. I made a few different inquiries for more info on touch DNA to different labs & got no replies. So what are we suppose to do? Continue to try to get the opinions of mainstream science? Or just forget that, knowing the opinions of our fellow researchers carries absolutely no weight whatsoever with the mainstream scientific community?
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Baby Bigfoot tracks?
Not often, but occasionally, there are reports of what appear to be baby Bigfoot tracks being found. These reports interest me for a couple reasons:
1)Some of these tracks are as small as 4 1/2" in length & the corresponding photos I've found, don't show a meandering trackway like one would expect of a baby biped.
2)I know of no reports of anyone finding impressions in the ground that would indicate a crawling baby bigfoot or of one walking a few steps, falling, getting up again, etc... There have been some possible Bigfoot handprints found and even cast, but as far as I know, they have all been large. Of course the reason for no evidence of crawling baby Bigfoots could be that the parents carry their young until they are able to walk on their own.(But at some point there would surely be some trial & error) I also know of no finds where there are a set of small tracks going along between large left & right footprints like if a parent was teaching a baby to walk. This brings to mind three possibilities:
1)We just haven't found the evidence of them teaching their young to walk yet
2)They teach themselves to walk. But that brings us back to the absence of baby Bigfoot handprints & indications of occasional falls.
3)The alleged baby Bigfoot tracks that have been found, are fakes
1)Some of these tracks are as small as 4 1/2" in length & the corresponding photos I've found, don't show a meandering trackway like one would expect of a baby biped.
2)I know of no reports of anyone finding impressions in the ground that would indicate a crawling baby bigfoot or of one walking a few steps, falling, getting up again, etc... There have been some possible Bigfoot handprints found and even cast, but as far as I know, they have all been large. Of course the reason for no evidence of crawling baby Bigfoots could be that the parents carry their young until they are able to walk on their own.(But at some point there would surely be some trial & error) I also know of no finds where there are a set of small tracks going along between large left & right footprints like if a parent was teaching a baby to walk. This brings to mind three possibilities:
1)We just haven't found the evidence of them teaching their young to walk yet
2)They teach themselves to walk. But that brings us back to the absence of baby Bigfoot handprints & indications of occasional falls.
3)The alleged baby Bigfoot tracks that have been found, are fakes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
